The Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military is scheduled to take effect Friday after delays and ongoing court challenges to the controversial Department of Defense (DOD) policy.
D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, presided over a hearing March 21 where she requested the department delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy.
Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect.
“I don’t want to jam up the D.C. Circuit. That’s my main concern here,” Reyes said during the March 21 hearing. “My chambers worked incredibly hard to get out an opinion on time.”
A SECOND JUDGE RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S REMOVAL OF TRANSGENDER TROOPS
Reyes gave the government a 3 p.m. deadline that same day to return about her request to push the deadline.
The government responded, saying it agreed to delay the March 26 deadline to March 28.
The legal challenge comes as the U.S. Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights. The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.
HEGSETH SUGGESTS JUDGE REPORT TO MILITARY BASES AFTER RULING THAT PENTAGON MUST ALLOW TRANSGENDER TROOPS
A decision from the high court, however, is not expected until May or June.
“The Skrmetti decision will occupy a good bit of the field here and provide some guidance. And so I doubt the D.C. Circuit is going to feel the need to rush things,” Charles Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.
“If I was sitting on the D.C. Circuit and I had all these other cases coming my way, and I was on a three-judge panel, I don’t think it’d be the top of my pile.”
Despite the looming deadline, Stimson said the ban will be “on pause” as the parties work through the appellate process.
“I don’t think the secretary is going to do anything in violation of a court order,” Stimson said. “Even if they disagree with that, you’d be wise not to.”
TRUMP ADMIN ASKS FEDERAL JUDGE TO DISSOLVE INJUNCTION BARRING TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN
Reyes had issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs March 18. Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit, who include transgender individuals, “face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm” that would warrant a preliminary injunction.”
On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. The filing argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”
The Trump administration further requested that, if the motion to dissolve is denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that it expected to enact the policy it not for the ongoing litigation. The guidance clarified that “the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria’” solely applies to “‘individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.'”
In its motion requesting to dissolve the March 18 injunction, the government wrote that the March 21 guidance constitutes a “significant change” that would warrant the court dissolving the injunction.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Under the requirements, a party requesting to dissolve a preliminary injunction must demonstrate “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” that shows that continued enforcement of the order would be “detrimental to the public interest.”
“The March 21, 2025, guidance constitutes a ‘significant change,’” the filing states. “Whereas the Court has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants, the new guidance underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”
Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
Read the full article here